
Our unexploded bombs in Southeast Asia from 50 years ago still kill people today
Imagine airplanes dropping bombs every 8 minutes, 24 hours a day, for 9 long years. This was the reality for Laos, a country scarred by a secret war most Americans never knew about.
My parents, age 14 at the time, were forced to endure the destruction and displacement of their community, its people and its religious sites. From 1964 to 1973, the U.S. secretly dropped at least 2.5 million tons of ordnance on Laos during 580,000 bombing missions, making it the most bombed country per capita in history.
Although I wasn't born during this war, I inherited its consequences. As a child, I witnessed my father, a surgeon, operate on countless victims of unexploded ordnance accidents. One was my classmate, a five-year-old little girl. The imminent dangers forced my family to flee in 1990 when I was only six years old.
In 1971, the so-called 'Secret War' in Laos was revealed to Congress, thanks to the courage of Fred Branfman and Bouangeun Luangpraseuth, who collected harrowing survivor testimonials. Yet it took two more decades before the U.S. began allocating funds to clean up its mess. In 1993, funding remained under $3 million, barely a drop compared to the $50 billion it had cost to bomb a neutral country against which we never declared war.
Today, millions of unexploded bombs remain, posing a deadly threat to children and their families. An estimated one-fourth of Laos is contaminated and less than 10 percent has been cleared. This burden hinders all aspects of life for the people of Laos, not only safety, but the long-term economic development.
As we commemorate World Refugee Day on June 20, we also recognize two other important dates: 50 years since the end of the Vietnam War and 50 years since the largest refugee resettlement wave in U.S. history — a direct result of America's military actions in Southeast Asia.
The Vietnam War affected not just the U.S. and Vietnam, but also Laos and Cambodia. Instead of celebrating our collective gains of peace with former adversaries, President Trump took office announcing a 90-day foreign aid freeze on January 20. All U.S.-funded programs were issued a stop-work order, including life-saving de-mining initiatives in Laos.
This was no insignificant matter. During the freeze, there were nine casualties in Laos from unexploded ordnance, including the death of a 15-year-old girl.
Thanks to persistent advocacy efforts from former U.S. ambassadors, veterans, youth and strong bipartisan Congressional support, funding for unexploded ordnance programs has resumed. but the damage during the halt is irreversible, and the trust between our country and the region is fragile.
To its credit, the U.S. has worked to resolve the enduring legacies of war — efforts that have saved lives, supported vulnerable communities, and strengthened diplomacy. Foreign aid is a strategic investment in our nation's long-term interests and global stability. Nowhere is this more evident than in Southeast Asia, where U.S. assistance has shown clear and lasting benefits: improved safety, stronger economies, and deeper cooperation between nations.
The U.S. began its post-war engagement by focusing on the recovery of Americans missing in action in 1985. The first American investigative team was approved by the Laotian government well before Laos and the U.S. normalized relations. The American team traveled to my childhood home, Pakse, Laos, to recover the remains of 13 service members lost in a 1972 plane crash. Since then, the U.S. has recovered more than 280 of the MIAs in Laos. This collaboration became the cornerstone for broader initiatives, such as the removal of unexploded ordnance and education about the dangers of explosive remnants of war.
These preventative efforts, combined with de-mining, have led to a dramatic drop in casualties in Laos, from more than 300 annually to 60 or fewer in the last decade.
Recognizing the value of these efforts, the U.S. now invests in similar programs globally and is the world's largest supporter of humanitarian de-mining, with more than $5 billion invested to date.
These programs prove what long-term commitment and international cooperation can achieve — helping war-torn communities rebuild, heal, and thrive.
As a former refugee, I view World Refugee Day as not just a day of reflection, but a reckoning — a test of our values, of whether we are willing to do right by those still living with the consequences of our past actions.
If America is to lead with morality, it must continue investing in the recovery of countries like Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. That means sustained funding and genuine partnership — not the politics of the moment, but a humane foreign policy shaped by the lessons of our past.
In the end, this is not only about Southeast Asia. It is about who we are and who we choose to be. America's legacy should not be measured by the bombs we dropped, but by the lives we choose to heal.
Sera Koulabdara is CEO of Legacies of War and co-chair of the War Legacies Working Group.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Police are at my door. Do I need to answer? What to know if law enforcement knocks in Texas
Knock! Knock! Knock! There's a stranger at your doorstep. You rush to the peephole to see who's there. It's the police. They ask you to open the door. Your next move could be costly. Do you open the door, ask questions, or ignore them? Following what prosecutors have described as the "political assassination" of Minnesota State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband — part of an attack that also injured Sen. John Hoffman and his wife — many Americans are now questioning their legal and practical options in response to the incident. The suspect in the case, Vance Boelter, 57, was dressed in a police officer's attire, complete with a black tactical vest, and carried a flashlight, as an officer would, according to an affidavit filed in federal court and written by Special Agent Terry Getsch of the FBI. Boelter was also driving an SUV equipped with a fake "POLICE" license plate and "law enforcement-style emergency lights," the affidavit said. "This is the police. Open the door," Boelter shouted outside at around 2 a.m. on June 14, according to Hoffman's family members, Getsch wrote in the affidavit. Here's what to know about answering the door for law enforcement in Texas. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution offers safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, granting your home the greatest degree of protection. As a result, law enforcement officers cannot enter your residence without valid legal authority. If the police knock on your door, you're not obligated to answer or let them in. According to this tactic, known as a 'knock and talk,' is designed to begin a voluntary conversation, but your participation is entirely optional. Law enforcement knocking on your door can be intimidating. Most people's first inclination is to answer the door for them. However, that doesn't mean you have to. Here are five things to keep in mind if police officers knock on your door: You don't have to open the door unless they have a warrant. If officers don't present a search or arrest warrant, you're not legally obligated to let them in. Ask if they have a warrant — and see it. If they claim to have one, you can request to see it through a window or have them slide it under the door before opening up. Don't step outside your home or invite them in unless you want to. Once you open the door or step outside, you may unintentionally waive some of your Fourth Amendment protections. Stay calm and polite — but say little. You have the right to remain silent. You can simply say, 'I don't wish to speak without a lawyer,' and that's enough. If they don't have a warrant, they can't enter unless there's an emergency. This includes things like hearing screams, seeing someone in danger, or suspecting a crime is actively happening inside. According to the Texas Constitution Search & Seizures §9, the law says the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. According to Texas law, there are situations of "exigent circumstances," also known as warrantless search and seizure in Texas. Under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the law authorizes officers to enter homes without a warrant in exigent circumstances. Examples of this include: Protection of life (first aid, extracting children who appear to be in danger, protecting an undercover officer or informant). Protection of property (such as extinguishing a fire or stopping a burglary). Preventing destruction of evidence. Pursuing a fleeing felon ('hot pursuit'). According to the Texas District & County Attorneys Association, exigent circumstances can justify an officer's initial entry into a residence, especially when the goal is to help someone in danger or ensure public safety. However, once the immediate emergency is under control, officers are no longer permitted to continue searching without legal authority. A warrant or another specific exception must be in place to allow further examination of the premises, though officers may secure the location while obtaining one. Notably, the exigent circumstances rule does not create a blanket exception for murder scenes that would permit unrestricted searches; entry is only permitted to assist victims or locate an attacker. -USA TODAY Network Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: If police knock on your door, do you need to open? What Texas law says

Wall Street Journal
11 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
‘Charles Sumner' Review: Fighting Slavery on the Senate Floor
Among the leaders of the Civil War era, figures such as Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman stand tall. Charles Sumner, the abolitionist and senator, was their contemporary—yet many Americans today associate his name with a single historical moment: when Preston Brooks, the representative from South Carolina, viciously beat him with a cane on the floor of the Senate Chamber in 1856. Sumner deserves to be remembered for much more than being the victim of Brooks's assault, argues Zaakir Tameez in his engrossing biography 'Charles Sumner: The Conscience of a Nation.' Mr. Tameez, a scholar of antitrust and constitutional law, has written an excellent book about the courageous Massachusetts senator, whom the author calls 'the most famous civil rights leader of the nineteenth century.' A physically and intellectually imposing figure whose heart 'bled for abolition, racial justice, and constitutional democracy,' Sumner pushed U.S. presidents and Senate colleagues alike to end slavery before the Civil War and to secure black rights during Reconstruction. Mr. Tameez's monograph joins Stephen Puleo's 'The Great Abolitionist' (2024) as the only two biographies of Sumner to have been published since David Herbert Donald's 'Charles Sumner and the Rights of Man' (1970). The excision of some repetitious material could have reduced the protracted length of Mr. Tameez's book, but 'Charles Sumner' is nonetheless an engaging account. Drawing from hundreds of letters, articles and speeches, Mr. Tameez has created a remarkable portrait of a complex man who faced many personal challenges. Depression stalked Sumner throughout his life, but his desire for racial justice gave him a sense of purpose and a will to live. As a young man, he struggled with his sexuality, partaking in 'romantic friendships' with married men—including Samuel Gridley Howe, the abolitionist and physician, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, the poet—and failing to find happiness with Alice Hooper, who abandoned him after mere months of matrimony. Heart disease afflicted Sumner in his older age, causing painful episodes of angina that sapped his strength and impeded his ability to work. Sumner's unwavering commitment to uplifting African-Americans was informed by his childhood on the North Slope of Boston's Beacon Hill, where he was born, in 1811, in a predominantly black community. Mr. Tameez describes Sumner's birthplace as 'featuring gaslit lamps, steep cobblestone roads, and redbrick sidewalks'; these distinctive elements didn't emerge until years later, but Beacon Hill at the turn of the 19th century was exceptional in other ways. Approximately 1,000 free African-Americans lived there and helped produce a 'bubbling movement of Black abolitionism,' Mr. Tameez tells us, making the neighborhood 'a beacon of hope' at a time when slavery was still legal in many states.


San Francisco Chronicle
12 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Judge rules Trump administration can't require states to help on immigration to get transport money
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars in transportation funds from states that don't agree to participate in some immigration enforcement actions. Twenty states sued after they said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy threatened to cut off funding to states that refused to comply with President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. barred federal transportation officials from carrying out that threat before the lawsuit is fully resolved. 'The Court finds that the States have demonstrated they will face irreparable and continuing harm if forced to agree to Defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional immigration conditions imposed in order to receive federal transportation grant funds,' wrote McConnell, the chief judge for the federal district of Rhode island. 'The States face losing billions of dollars in federal funding, are being put in a position of relinquishing their sovereign right to decide how to use their own police officers, are at risk of losing the trust built between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, and will have to scale back, reconsider, or cancel ongoing transportation projects.' On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts or risk losing the congressionally appropriated funds. No funding was immediately withheld, but some of the states feared the move was imminent. Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new so-called 'Duffy Directive' put them in an impossible position. 'The States can either attempt to comply with an unlawful and unconstitutional condition that would surrender their sovereign control over their own law enforcement officers and reduce immigrants' willingness to report crimes and participate in public health programs — or they can forfeit tens of billions of dollars of funds they rely on regularly to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect their communities and homes,' the attorneys general wrote in court documents. But acting Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom told the judge that Congress has given the Department of Transportation the legal right to set conditions for the grant money it administers to states, and that requiring compliance and cooperation with federal law enforcement is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Allowing the federal government to withhold the funds while the lawsuit moves forward doesn't cause any lasting harm, Bloom wrote in court documents, because that money can always be disbursed later if needed. But requiring the federal government to release the money to uncooperative states will likely make it impossible to recoup later, if the Department of Transportation wins the case, Bloom said.